Courtesy of University of Chicago Press
Do we need another biography of Duke Ellington? The answer is a resounding, “Yes!” Harvey G. Cohen’s biography of one of the greatest composers of the 20th century in any musical genre has much to offer in scholarship that has not existed before. The book, called Duke Ellington’s America (University of Chicago Press), is, like Robin J. Kelly’s biography of Thelonious Monk, based on first-time research into the personal archives of the Duke. It clears up a number of legends which Ellington’s early biographers promulgated again and again.
The book describes a number of things that Ellington accomplished that he should have been given much credit for. Among these are precedents during 1931 to 1935 for international critics and audiences to perceive that American music “as serious and lasting” and equal to that of Europeans. This was before American classical composers became well-known internationally. Ellington was one of the first bandleaders during the “Swing Era” to consciously provide both listening (concert) and dancing (dance hall) music. He changed the way “popular” music was presented.
Ellington’s views on race reflected that he was the son of a black middle-class Washington D.C. family. These views caused a lot of trouble between the more left-leaning African-American activists and Ellington. His attitude was to recognize the best in everything, rather than categorizing people on the basis of color. His community mindset was that progress would occur by achievement and respectability not by protest and political activity. Duke’s sister Ruth said that their father never mentioned color.
Ellington’s early musical training was interesting. He apparently an autodidact who learned theory and harmony by going to people who could tell him about the subject and asking questions, rather than attending classes or reading books. He recognized that there were good things to be learned from both “ear” and “manuscript” musicians and combined the best from each group.
Ellington’s interactions with his first agent, Irving Mills, are illuminated in much greater detail than in any other Ellington biography. According to Cohen, this relationship was one that very calculated on the part of both men to present Ellington as a genius from the very first. As a result, Ellington’s orchestra was much more well-known among white audiences than other biographies have claimed. Ellington was much bigger during the “Swing Era” than I certainly believed. The relationship with Mills involved some fiddling with Ellington’s books by Mills. When Ellington discovered this he was able to extricate himself from Mills’ business dealings. There is an old story (not in this book) that Mills’ Hollywood home had a bright red rug in the foyer. Someone who knew both Ellington and Mills saw the rug and exclaimed, “That’s Duke’s blood!”
Cohen’s book is unusual in that it details much of Ellington’s later career, seeing his career as an unceasing drive to tell the story of his people right up until his death. Post 1956 Ellington is usually not seen as triumphant as the Ellington of the Cotton Club Era or the early forties “Webster-Blanton” band. Cohen is especially taken with Ellington’s “Sacred Concerts” and how Ellington was not afraid to let his beliefs show.
The very complex relationship between Ellington and his writing partner Billy Strayhorn is detailed, but this book does not shed more light on it. Until Strayhorn’s archives are studied, we will never really know what each man brought to the working relationship in which Strayhorn mainly subjugated his great talent to the needs of the Ellington organization. I have a four CD set by the Dutch Radio orchestra that celebrates Strayhorn’s great composing and arranging talents that were very different from Ellington’s. Cohen’s book details a schism that occurred between the Ellington and Strayhorn families soon after Strayhorn’s death. Ellington was devastated by the loss of Strayhorn and this spurred him to write even more music, some of which was fairly abstract.
Ellington’s business acumen has always been suspect in all the previous biographies that discuss this part of his career. According to Cohen, this was because Ellington never accumulated wealth, although he could have done that. Ellington did something else with his money: he helped those he loved and used his money to provide an environment and lifestyle where he could be continuously creative.
Starting in 1963, Ellington began producing “Sacred Concerts” in churches all over the world. Cohen describes the sentiments expressed in the Sacred Concerts as resembling “the embracing and tolerant Sermon on the Mount more than the doctrinal and moral messages of the Apostle Paul.” It was from those who embraced those moral and doctrinal messages that the criticism came. There have always been zealots who believe that anything secular should not be played in churches and Ellington’s vision included such things as dancing and joyous music.
As his career “wound down” in the 1970’s, Ellington continued his creative drive right up until his death. Cohen points out three pieces of Ellington’s written during this period that deserve much more attention. I’ve always played selections from them on my radio show. They are The Afro-Eurasian Eclipse, the New Orleans Suite and the ballet, The River, written for the Alvin Ailey Dance Company. Much of Ellington’s latter works such as these have been given short shrift in the other biographies.
In his life, Duke Ellington composed over 1500 works that included popular songs, theater scores, film scores, classical pieces and jazz suites. The breadth of his talent was staggering; his love for his country knew no bounds but yet he never received a Pulitzer or Nobel Prize that lesser talents have gotten. He always lived his life the way he wanted. This caused consternation in some quarters, but nothing deterred him from his mission of creating a body of work that told his story as an American and the history and story of his Afro-American heritage.
This Ellington biography is the definitive one up until now. It represents what jazz scholarship ought to be and does not repeat the old legends and clichés. It is refreshing to read such scholarship in a field that is more fan-driven that fact-driven.
